Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I'm still lurking around Nigel. I've not been modeling the last few weeks due to a visit to hospital for surgery. I've also not had much to contribute to this accuracy thread as I've not found anything above and beyond what you have thoroughly documented here. What little modeling I've been doing has been working on the dorsal and ball turret adding some detail etc but I don't consider adding detail the manufacturers left out an accuracy issue per se but more a level of detail issue and hence I decided not to post here (I suppose I should take your suggestion and start my own thread) I'd personally like to see you pull all your build pics and notes into a dedicated thread because a lot of what you are showing us now is kinda borderline inaccuracy and more super detailing (which is great), and its not that it does not belong here it's just that I find specific threads easier to follow rather than having to wade through different comments and side discussions in a general thread about any and all accuracy issues that may come up. cheers Gary Gary, I for one would love to see the work you've done on the turrets. I haven't even looked at the parts on their sprue yet? Please get some pics up...and get better soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I've just found another biggie... The windows in the nose are parallelogram shaped to fit within the incorrect ribbing in the nose interior. I have removed the wrong ribbing, but the indows are gonna be a real pita to sort out!! Note the shape, getting worse towards the nose!! Arrrggghhh!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 I've just found another biggie... The windows in the nose are parallelogram shaped to fit within the incorrect ribbing in the nose interior. I have removed the wrong ribbing, but the indows are gonna be a real pita to sort out!! Note the shape, getting worse towards the nose!! Arrrggghhh!!!! Geeze Nigel you don't do things by halves !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 While researching the chin turret I found this resource (http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/bendix-chin-turret.html) that I figured others may find useful when it comes time to correct it. From what I can see the basic shape is pretty good but the shell ejection holes on the very bottom are missing and the rear openings on the turret are fairly wrong. I think someone else has already posted in this thread their corrections to the turret but I can't find it in the 30 odd pages ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) Great link thanks Gary. I hadn't seen that one until now. As for the turret mods, I have shown how I did this in my WIP thread, but it was Dennis who showed us all first on this thread, back in the early posts... In my last post I mentioned the frustrating issue with the parallelogram shaped nose windows, which in my opinion is a bigger and more difficult issue to correct than the nose radius. I have done some research and used photos and drawings to come up with these findings. The windows, luckily, are too big, so once the apertures are corrected, the clear parts can be sanded down to fit. Yeah, that should be really easy right?? I thought I'd also check their position according to the drawings in B-17 Flying Fortress by Roger Freeman. Guess what, the positions are also wrong, then I started looking at the size and position of the cheek armour for the guns and found they are also in error!! It seems that every time I start looking at something I find a mine field of errors!! You'll see in my pics, taken with a lit background to shine through the tape, the errors are obvious. I've also marked up the positions the cheek armour should be in. Note the starboard side leans down, whereas it should have an upward slant to it. The front window on the starboard side is much smaller than the others, to fit between the stringers I assume, but the kit has it the same size as the other windows. it would appear from my references that the bottom edge of each window is in the correct position. If you go to my WIP build, you'll see how I attempt this correction. It won't be easy. Edited October 13, 2013 by Nigelr32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) Wait a minute there.... Those side windows should all be the same size from what I've seen and the rounded corners on each are correct.. I'm gonna dig into it a little further to make sure I'm correct but I've never seen any fort with a tiny window on the right side, forward of the cheek gun. Oh, those cheek positions are not armor plate, just formed aluminum. Edited October 13, 2013 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Wait a minute there.... Those side windows should all be the same size from what I've seen and the rounded corners on each are correct.. I'm gonna dig into it a little further to make sure I'm correct but I've never seen any fort with a tiny window on the right side, forward of the cheek gun. Oh, those cheek positions are not armor plate, just formed aluminum. Tim, the square corners are just there as rough sketched on positions and sizes. I realise they are all rounded on the corners. I never thought I'd be telling you you're mistaken Tim, but I think you'll find the forward window on the Starboard side is smaller on every G out there.. Here's my first window done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 (edited) You are certainly correct Nigel! My error. I looked at the IPC and each one of the windows (2 on the right and three on the left, have different part numbers) is a different size (pre cheek gun modifications). Each has a different part number so each is a different size. Damned if I didn't learn something new again today. Damn the good luck.... Too bad I don't have dimensions on those windows or I could get down right specific. Now that that's been established, why don't you just put the oversized window in place, scribe the new size clear and then mask it off and fill/sand the remainder? It seems a pain to reshape the window then file/sand the window down to the correct size and then reinstall the new window. Edited October 13, 2013 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Yippee!! I was right for once in my life!!! It would appear from my drawings that the two port windows and one off starboard rear are the same size and the upper front and starboard front are the same size? I want to reposition the windows correctly so that I can get the slightly sub flush appearance I'm after, the windows were fitted from the inside. I also want to replicate the frames surrounding each window. What do you think of my opinions on the cheek gun protrusions Tim? I learned something too, I always thought they were thick Aluminium as a minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Yippee!! I was right for once in my life!!! It would appear from my drawings that the two port windows and one off starboard rear are the same size and the upper front and starboard front are the same size? I want to reposition the windows correctly so that I can get the slightly sub flush appearance I'm after, the windows were fitted from the inside. I also want to replicate the frames surrounding each window. What do you think of my opinions on the cheek gun protrusions Tim? I learned something too, I always thought they were thick Aluminium as a minimum. I'll go with what you're saying as you have credible references and I trust your conclusions. The cheek gun ports do look a bit "odd" but I don't know if it's the small windows/gun aperature in the installation that is off or the shape and/or tilt of said installation. I'd really need a set of plans to compare to definitively state one way or the other. You're way deeper into this than I would've gone so keep plugging away. If you have the Aero Detail book on the B-17, you can get a good idea of what the kit has by looking at the plans in the book. Those are what HK used to develop the kit and these drawings are inaccurate to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 Hey Tim, The only drawings I have are in the book mentioned earlier. You are responsible for making me buy that book Tim, and it is very good indeed. I have he warbird files book as well, which I don't rate. I look at the drawings in the aforementioned book and compare them to photo's of actual planes on Google. So far, I have found the drawings to be good. The Starboard nose section is out all the way.. each window and the gun position are out in relation to the airframe. What is shocking is the fact that HK got the rivet lines correct, as the rib lines now fall in the middle of each window on my model. I don't know what HK used as references to make this kit, but it's not a patch on the B-25. Lets hope the Lancaster is better. If you're reading this HK, send me a test shot and I'll check it out for you against my plans...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nigelr32 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I just wanted to give this thread a little bump. Why I hear you ask???? It's hit over 20000 hits in only two months... must be a lot of interested people out there??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOTR Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I don't know what HK used as references to make this kit, but it's not a patch on the B-25. Lets hope the Lancaster is better. If you're reading this HK, send me a test shot and I'll check it out for you against my plans...... From what I read in an earlier thread, they started with the Aero Detail plans. But you should probably ask for detailed images/renders of the CAD-files. Once the metal is cut, its pretty unlikely they'll be willing to redo the fuselage if problems should appear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superfly Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I thought that there was a whole panel of experts that helped develope this kit???....which is why we all bought into it...with all the corrections on here...it pretty much makes most my eduard sets useless. I'm getting pretty upset with this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggernut Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 The list of "experts" who helped develop this kit are listed by name on a sheet that comes in each kit. Now before we tar and feather those individuals I think we need to know the circumstances behind the development of this kit. Whether or not those people will openly discuss their involvement has yet to be determined but since the refuting of said errors has been nill, I'm thinking we'll not find out to the extent we'd like to. I don't know about the rest of those on the list but at least two are LSP members and one posts here semi-regularly albeit he didn't have much to do with the design/tooling of the kit. Oddly enough, the other is a well known Bf-109 guy and I'm sure some of us may already know who I'm referring to. How he got into the B-17 development team I'll most likely never know. Once again, the drawings HK used to develop the kit are from the Aero Detail book on the B-17 and those drawings are flawed and subsequently, so is the kit in those same areas. As far as the interior is concerned, I don't have any information on what was or was not used in the development of the interior in this kit but its been bastardized. I offered my assistance a long, long time ago when the kit was first announced by another company and was graciously accepted but then that company ceased operations and my input was no longer needed. I also had a hand in a 1/32 B-17F project by another company but they too went the way of the dodo... Oh well, HK has one going now and I pray to God that they get this one somewhere in the infield of the "correct" ball park. I'm eyeing my old, 2nd issue Monogram B-17G and thinking that I'd probably have a better model in the end if I used that kit as a starting point albeit in 1/48 scale. For it's age, it's still the flagship of all the B-17 models out there as far as exterior shapes are concerned. Some of the details are wrong and some others are mixed between G variants but overall it's the best kit going if you wanna build a big B-17. If you want a HUGE B-17 then the HK kit is your best option at this time but be prepared for some work unless you don't care about accuracy of said model kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts